this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2024
265 points (93.7% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6452 readers
1284 users here now
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes
If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Random twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Low Hanging Fruit thread.
3. Content must be relevant
Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.
4. No racism / hatespeech
No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.
5. No politics
We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.
6. No seriousposting
We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.
7. No classified material
Classified information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.
8. Source artwork
If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.
9. No low-effort posts
No egregiously low effort posts. These include Social media screenshots with a title punchline / no punchline, recent (after the start of the Ukraine War) reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Low effort thread instead.
10. Don't get us banned
No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.
Join our Matrix chatroom
Other communities you may be interested in
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You're confusing a few things, firstly you mean current gen large language models not AI, ai is often used to evolve novel strategies from scratch without any human training data - chess ai don't have to study human games for example, in fact grand master chess players have been studying what the ai learned and discovered things that humans hadn't realised even after a thousand years of the games popularity.
Secondly that's not really how LLMs work either, they're much more mathematically complex and very much create their own ideas on a similar process we do of assembling concepts then structure then word choice.
It's fine you not understanding how this works but the problem is that journalists don't either even when they're writing about it - this puts us in a situation where they're making childishly naive but of course clickbait titles claiming there's some relevance to the output when the tool is used very wrong so you rightly point out it's stupid and that's not how llms work but then we get this overstep where it's being refuted with an equal amount of magical thinking and false conclusions made.
An LLM can make novelty and originality but it can't create with intent, it doesn't use reason or structure - there are AI that do these things to limited degrees and of course the NSA one that they spent all that money on and no one is allowed to talk about. Using chat GPT play a silly fantasy won't tell us anything about how they'll think so this article is entirely worthless
so it's the AI's own idea to create nuclear armageddon? That's kinda worse.
No, they do not "create" their own "ideas". You can relax.
The concept of intelligence is tied to both information generation and information validation. LLMs are extremely fancy smoke and mirrors (very similar to what pseudo-random algorithms are in respect to entropy) meant to dazzle us, but they are not capable of generating new information (only to generate new combinations of existing information). They are, also, currently unable to reliably validate said information, which is why they so commonly, hilariously say trivially verifiably wrong things with the utmost apparent confidence.
While you're right, let's not incorrectly imply that ML (especially Deep Learning) has never come up with new ideas.
Yes, it comes up with new ideas from old information, but some have argued that's what humans do. We all stand on the shoulders of giants, who themselves tood on the shoulders of nature.
As I said:
They're basically fuzzing the goals we give them with random combinations of the information we feed them.
There is undeniably a value in that (we commonly use fuzzing for security and QA already, for example), but let's not kid ourselves that "AI" is somehow actually intelligent.
However, the question we ought to ask ourselves is: does actual intelligence really matter? If pseudo-randomness is good enough for cryptographic applications, is pseudo-intuition (eventually) coupled with proper rationalization (the only part of intelligence computers can systematically do) enough to replace most tasks humans do?
That's not really an accurate take of how machine learning typically works. Neural Networks (allegedly) learn in a way similar to how humans do, taking the data they are fed and building a weighted matrix of resolutions that seems most compatible. A historically interesting trait is that neural networks are often better pattern-discoverers than humans.
But note, the outcome of a neural network is NOT a "random combination of the information we feed them">
I feel like this is a hard question to answer since it is based off controversial takes about ML. I am not a brain-is-a-computer hypothesis adherent, but we're talking about specific learning mechanisms that are absolutely comparable to human learning. Is "the learning humans do" enough to replace "the learning humans do"? I would say obviously yes.
The implementation details of how they represent their information doesn't really matter.
It isn't random, it's selected (or "weighted", if you wanna be more precise, yes)
And don't confuse things. We're talking about intelligence here. Not learning. Learning can be done without intelligence (that's how insects can learn behavior) and intelligence can be done without learning.
My question was uniquely about information generation (since the validation part is fully rational, and can be very efficiently done by a machine).
Are we? Alright. Can you describe a definition test for intelligence that we could agree upon that humans pass and no NN or other ML is capable of passing? I suspect you're confusing things. Not an
intelligence,learningcomparison, but anintelligence,consciousnessconfusion.Akshhuuually